It looks like I erred in giving you the benefit of the doubt. I'm not sure what part of this is hard to understand. You're missing the point. When I say check your sources, I mean to do that to see how credible the sources in, in regards to accuracy. And if there is bias, it means you should look deeper.

I know the HRC has bias, so that's why a look at what that article says and if it needs additional scrutiny. Here's the difference, and the point I'm trying to make:

You linked to a person who has no expertise in gender identity, to an article that has not actual facts or science in it, and instead is just an opinion piece. McHugh even later admitted he has no scientific evidence, just his opinion. Contrast that to HRC that I linked to. While they have bias, what in that link is not factually true? Everything there is something that has objective data we can point to to prove it factual or not. McHugh having no expertise on the subject? We can validate that. The fact hundreds of his peers soundly debunked him? We can validate that too. Along with everything else in that link I provided to.

You seem to be struggling with understanding how measurable and objective facts are more important than someone's opinion.

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." --Isaac Asimov

I don't disagree with any this, though I'll hope you'll understand why, if we do actually disagree on the nature of gender, why I would take that personally.

I'm sure we disagree over many things passionately. There are, as I'm sure you know, even personal offense taken over a great many matters of academic or trivial debate. I gather that for you this debate is not one that is either academic or trivial, but one you have a personal stake in. For my part, my stake while less personal and intimate than yours, is one I also feel strong emotion about because you don't have to be trans to care deeply about the health and well-being of someone that identifies as such. But, if we tried to argue over all the things people passionately disagree about, we'd never end up talking about games. And besides which, our gracious hosts have asked us nicely not to do so, and I tend to as a guest try not to offend a host unless it become absolutely necessary.

My problem with this question is that "realism", in whatever form it might be described, is completely irrelevant to the conversation.

I certainly don't agree.

It certainly doesn't impact whether such a mechanic could be considered "ethical" or "acceptable" or what have you.

If reality is not able to inform that conversation, what possibly could?

People who want "realism" in their games, however they've chosen to define "reality" (which may or may not have any basis in actual reality), can play their horrible games all they want. It doesn't mean that anybody should have to accept or appreciate that.

So is this an answer of, "No.", to the first question, and "Yes." to the second?

Exactly! There is no need for these organisations to push their view around like it's happening nowadays. IF someone wants to get some info, they can contact these entities themselves in order to get the support/info/what ever they need.

No need for huge media campaigns and such for example.

By all means do what ever you want, but don't demand that others have to go along with it and agree. Others have the right to live their lives as they see fit too you know.

Something even stupido newton got right while being wrong in many things ...

“and to every action there is always an equal and opposite or contrary, reaction”